This is the location for conversations that don't fall anywhere else on FlameFans. Whether its politics, culture, the latest techno stuff or just the best places to travel on the web ... this is your forum.
User avatar
By Purple Haize
#540405
dbackjon wrote:Junior?


He defends sexual predators, child molesters, etc. power has gone to his head.


I was unaware there was a Scripture verse that anointed a person with the Screen Name ‘dbackjon’ as arbiter of Christian piety. Now granted I haven’t bought one of the newer Translations or Paraphrases since the NIV Study Bible, and personally prefer the RSV so I might have missed something
User avatar
By Purple Haize
#540415
ballah09 wrote:
dbackjon wrote:Junior?


He defends sexual predators, child molesters, etc. power has gone to his head.


There's a few of us that have stopped supporting Jr along time ago.


You realize that doesn’t make you a better or worse or even A Christian, right?
User avatar
By Jonathan Carone
#540418 It’s hard to justify the Gospel and teachings of Jesus with supporting people who have done things so anti-Gospel. I can see how people look at Christians who blindly support politicians with anti-Christian backgrounds and question their actual relationship with Jesus. We are known by our fruit and defiantly supporting politicians in the wake of sexual scandals isn’t the best fruit.
User avatar
By Purple Haize
#540420 Did Moore say the allegations are true?
On a side note it’s the intermingling of Religion and Politics that’s become an issue. As the OP demonstrates if your brand of Christianity isn’t like my brand of Christianity then you are not really a Christian.
I like Trumps policies. If Moore can help get them passed I hope he gets elected. If he had sex with underage girls I hope he does not.
User avatar
By TH Spangler
#540428
adam42381 wrote:Trump and Moore are more than likely sexual predators. You are free to root for the laundry, but you’ll be on the wrong side of history.


Moore should hire HRC to defend him. She's very experienced with these cases. :lol:
User avatar
By adam42381
#540431
TH Spangler wrote:
adam42381 wrote:Trump and Moore are more than likely sexual predators. You are free to root for the laundry, but you’ll be on the wrong side of history.


Moore should hire HRC to defend him. She's very experienced with these cases. :lol:

The “Jesus juke” has been replaced by the “but Hillary”. Hillary and Bill are awful people. That has nothing to do with the current President or any number of other people currently in office. She lost. I don’t understand the right’s fascination with her at this point.
User avatar
By Purple Haize
#540432
adam42381 wrote:
TH Spangler wrote:
adam42381 wrote:Trump and Moore are more than likely sexual predators. You are free to root for the laundry, but you’ll be on the wrong side of history.


Moore should hire HRC to defend him. She's very experienced with these cases. :lol:

The “Jesus juke” has been replaced by the “but Hillary”. Hillary and Bill are awful people. That has nothing to do with the current President or any number of other people currently in office. She lost. I don’t understand the right’s fascination with her at this point.


Probably because she won’t go away?
I also seem to remember an Innocent Until Proven Guilty concept.
Vigilantism has replaced a pursuit of Justice.
User avatar
By Class of 20Something
#540433 I think we can be at a place where we disagree with someone's personal doings, but support their political agenda.

I don't support Trump because I am a Christian. I support him because I believe he will preserve Christianity in the United States. Justice Gorsuch is a prime example of someone he appointed that will help protect the first amendment.

I am fairly libertarian. I think the federal government should be small. I would rather localities have more laws that reflect constituents wishes. Prohibition didn't work, but there are still dry counties to this day.

The federal government's job is pretty clearly outlined in the Preamble.

Justice
Domestic Tranquility
Defense
Promote the general welfare
Secure Liberty

Anything beyond that should be delegated to the state and local legislatures where I vote my faith.

The United States isn't a theocracy.

Edit: A word
Last edited by Class of 20Something on November 11th, 2017, 2:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
By cruzan_flame13
#540434
Class of 20Something wrote:I think we can be at a place where we disagree with someone's personal doings, but support their political agenda.

I don't support Trump because I am a Christian. I support him because I believe he will preserve Christianity in the United States. Justice Gorsuch is a prime example of someone he appointed that will help protect the first amendment.

I am fairly libertarian. I think the federal government should be small. I would rather localities have more laws that reflect constituents wishes. Prohibition didn't work, but there are still dry could ties to this day.

The federal government's job is pretty clearly outlined in the Preamble.

Justice
Domestic Tranquility
Defense
Promote the general welfare
Secure Liberty

Anything beyond that should be delegated to the state and local legislatures where I vote my faith.

The United States isn't a theocracy.




Well said Something.
User avatar
By Jonathan Carone
#540435 There’s a difference in supporting someone’s politics/policies in spite of their personal shortcomings and going out of your way to dismiss/defens that person’s shortcomings.
User avatar
By Purple Haize
#540440
Jonathan Carone wrote:There’s a difference in supporting someone’s politics/policies in spite of their personal shortcomings and going out of your way to dismiss/defens that person’s shortcomings.


I can agree with that to a point. The problem is that is sort of a ‘middle ground’ and that is a Wasteland in Politics today. There is also no consistency in condemnation. Sen Menendez - Let’s what for all the facts. Roy Moore - Skin him alive.
The Diefication of Politicians is disturbing to me.
User avatar
By Purple Haize
#540443
thepostman wrote:Why should I put my faith aside to vote for someone? One is eternity based and another is temporary. I have struggled with that very question for years.


Yeah, that’s a fine line. How much do you expect your beliefs to line up with yours? Or do you look at their Policies and how closely they match your beliefs? I fall on the side of Policy. It’s why I can vote for a Mormon AND Trump.
By Yacht Rock
#540452
Purple Haize wrote:
thepostman wrote:Why should I put my faith aside to vote for someone? One is eternity based and another is temporary. I have struggled with that very question for years.


Yeah, that’s a fine line. How much do you expect your beliefs to line up with yours? Or do you look at their Policies and how closely they match your beliefs? I fall on the side of Policy. It’s why I can vote for a Mormon AND Trump.


I think you can look at a combination of policies and character without expecting them to hold the same theological beliefs.

I think the major difference has nothing to do with theology and more to do with our different levels of tolerance on what we will accept out of a candidate.

Now, because our character is informed by our faith, those two can often be intermingled, so it can appear that people don't want to support a candidate because they are not a Christian.
User avatar
By makarov97
#540476 Pretty laughable and predictable responses by some of the triggered holier than thou millennials in here.

We are in a society right now, where this pathetic "accusers have the right to be believed" mantra has turned the entire nation into the Salem witch trials.

Accusers have the right to fairly present EVIDENCE. They ALWAYS, and WITHOUT QUESTION, must bear the burden of proof. In criminal court. In civil court. In the court of public opinion.

If it isn't that way, we no longer live in a free society, and anyone at any time, can destroy another with an accusation.

If there is actual evidence, so be it. Let the chips fall where they may. If its an accusation, you make the accuser PROVE the charge. Especially if there is a categorical denial on the part of the other.

The triggered snowflakes were devastated by the loss of their lesbian queen, and they are doing everything possible to try to turn society into something where they can gain power.

This latest attempt is one of the most dangerous that I have ever seen.

Duke Lacrosse and UVA come to mind as to why you don't believe accusers and accusations without question.

There were just a couple of hoax/false accusations incidents in Lynchburg not all that long ago.

And just to head off any nonsense, I believe that same standard should apply across the board, even to people whom I politically disagree with. For instance, the accusations against George Takei that just came out. I can't stand Takei. He's a disgusting sodomite. However, he should get all the benefit of the doubt, absent EVIDENCE, especially since he has issued a denial.

It can't be any other way in a free society.
User avatar
By Purple Haize
#540477
makarov97 wrote:Pretty laughable and predictable responses by some of the triggered holier than thou millennials in here.

We are in a society right now, where this pathetic "accusers have the right to be believed" mantra has turned the entire nation into the Salem witch trials.

Accusers have the right to fairly present EVIDENCE. They ALWAYS, and WITHOUT QUESTION, must bear the burden of proof. In criminal court. In civil court. In the court of public opinion.

If it isn't that way, we no longer live in a free society, and anyone at any time, can destroy another with an accusation.

If there is actual evidence, so be it. Let the chips fall where they may. If its an accusation, you make the accuser PROVE the charge. Especially if there is a categorical denial on the part of the other.

The triggered snowflakes were devastated by the loss of their lesbian queen, and they are doing everything possible to try to turn society into something where they can gain power.

This latest attempt is one of the most dangerous that I have ever seen.

Duke Lacrosse and UVA come to mind as to why you don't believe accusers and accusations without question.

There were just a couple of hoax/false accusations incidents in Lynchburg not all that long ago.

And just to head off any nonsense, I believe that same standard should apply across the board, even to people whom I politically disagree with. For instance, the accusations against George Takei that just came out. I can't stand Takei. He's a disgusting sodomite. However, he should get all the benefit of the doubt, absent EVIDENCE, especially since he has issued a denial.

It can't be any other way in a free society.


Don’t forget Anita Hill and Clarence Thomas. Ginger White and Herman Cain. And the earliest I remember is the McMartin Preschool Trial. I’m sure there are many others I’m forgetting
User avatar
By makarov97
#540482
Purple Haize wrote:
makarov97 wrote:Pretty laughable and predictable responses by some of the triggered holier than thou millennials in here.

We are in a society right now, where this pathetic "accusers have the right to be believed" mantra has turned the entire nation into the Salem witch trials.

Accusers have the right to fairly present EVIDENCE. They ALWAYS, and WITHOUT QUESTION, must bear the burden of proof. In criminal court. In civil court. In the court of public opinion.

If it isn't that way, we no longer live in a free society, and anyone at any time, can destroy another with an accusation.

If there is actual evidence, so be it. Let the chips fall where they may. If its an accusation, you make the accuser PROVE the charge. Especially if there is a categorical denial on the part of the other.

The triggered snowflakes were devastated by the loss of their lesbian queen, and they are doing everything possible to try to turn society into something where they can gain power.

This latest attempt is one of the most dangerous that I have ever seen.

Duke Lacrosse and UVA come to mind as to why you don't believe accusers and accusations without question.

There were just a couple of hoax/false accusations incidents in Lynchburg not all that long ago.

And just to head off any nonsense, I believe that same standard should apply across the board, even to people whom I politically disagree with. For instance, the accusations against George Takei that just came out. I can't stand Takei. He's a disgusting sodomite. However, he should get all the benefit of the doubt, absent EVIDENCE, especially since he has issued a denial.

It can't be any other way in a free society.


Don’t forget Anita Hill and Clarence Thomas. Ginger White and Herman Cain. And the earliest I remember is the McMartin Preschool Trial. I’m sure there are many others I’m forgetting


Yes. I've seen it in domestic violence cases as well. Conviction by accusation is the new trendy thing. It's been politicized as well. If it works and becomes accepted, no one, anywhere, is safe.
By thepostman
#540486 It woild be so awesome if people could have a discussion without the terms "snowflake" and "triggered" being thrown in there. I am not a millennial but not all millennials are the same.

Also nobody on this board is claiming this guy is guilty but you also can't completely dismiss it so quickly either.
User avatar
By Purple Haize
#540488
thepostman wrote:It woild be so awesome if people could have a discussion without the terms "snowflake" and "triggered" being thrown in there. I am not a millennial but not all millennials are the same.

Also nobody on this board is claiming this guy is guilty but you also can't completely dismiss it so quickly either.


Umm, the Op certainly is making that claim you snowflakes! :) (notnthat we will ever see them again)

Maybe this article will trigger you. Apparently it’s ok to molest and rape if your cause is pure https://medusamagazine.com/why-we-shoul ... e-liberals
By Yacht Rock
#540490
thepostman wrote:It woild be so awesome if people could have a discussion without the terms "snowflake" and "triggered" being thrown in there. I am not a millennial but not all millennials are the same.

Also nobody on this board is claiming this guy is guilty but you also can't completely dismiss it so quickly either.


This. I don't know if he's guilty, but based on the evidence I have (his story/her story) there's just as much chance in my mind of him being guilty versus him being not guilty. I don't know either party so trust doesn't play into this. The story sounds feasible to me (contrary to the protestations of PH) so it may have happened. I don't know if it did but it's certainly looking into. Moore's denial holds just as much water as her accusations for me. I wouldn't dismiss them outright because there is an important vote coming up, etc.

You can say "innocent until proven guilty" and that is how the court system works. That isn't how the court of public opinion works. The good thing (and it is a good thing) is that we as individuals aren't bound by the limitations of the legal system. We can form our own opinions based on the evidence and we don't have to worry about things like reasonable doubt, etc. I.E., if someone is found not guilty on a technicality we don't walk away and say, "oh well, they're innocent."

You can't compare the court system and public opinion. They are vastly different things.
User avatar
By Purple Haize
#540491
thepostman wrote:Hahaahahaha medusa magazine?


I thought you were a Charter subscriber :dontgetit Study It’s been picked up by another blog and wouldn’t be surprised to see this as a talking point. Especially with Takei
User avatar
By Class of 20Something
#540492
thepostman wrote:It woild be so awesome if people could have a discussion without the terms "snowflake" and "triggered" being thrown in there. I am not a millennial but not all millennials are the same.

Also nobody on this board is claiming this guy is guilty but you also can't completely dismiss it so quickly either.


I appreciate this. It's really frustrating that some here discount opinions because of their presuppositions.
User avatar
By makarov97
#540498
Yacht Rock wrote:
thepostman wrote:It woild be so awesome if people could have a discussion without the terms "snowflake" and "triggered" being thrown in there. I am not a millennial but not all millennials are the same.

Also nobody on this board is claiming this guy is guilty but you also can't completely dismiss it so quickly either.


This. I don't know if he's guilty, but based on the evidence I have (his story/her story) there's just as much chance in my mind of him being guilty versus him being not guilty. I don't know either party so trust doesn't play into this. The story sounds feasible to me (contrary to the protestations of PH) so it may have happened. I don't know if it did but it's certainly looking into. Moore's denial holds just as much water as her accusations for me. I wouldn't dismiss them outright because there is an important vote coming up, etc.

You can say "innocent until proven guilty" and that is how the court system works. That isn't how the court of public opinion works. The good thing (and it is a good thing) is that we as individuals aren't bound by the limitations of the legal system. We can form our own opinions based on the evidence and we don't have to worry about things like reasonable doubt, etc. I.E., if someone is found not guilty on a technicality we don't walk away and say, "oh well, they're innocent."

You can't compare the court system and public opinion. They are vastly different things.


Absolute nonsense. The cop out that you just used is pathetic. It’s one of the. OST dangerous talking points that have come out of this mess. The accuser must bear the burden in every case. The criminal court. The civil court. The “court of public opinion.” If you can destroy someone in any “court” with an accusation, no one is safe and we are all slaves. In a free society, the accused must always, in every case, be given the benefit of the doubt in the absence of evidence.

This is especially important in “he said/she said”cases. This principle has nothing to do with Moore or Takei or anyone else.

The moment we hold a trial and conviction someone on an accusation, in particular an old accusation, freedom dies.

An accuser always has the right to bring forward evidence. That’s what we must convict people on, IN ALL courts, including the court of public opinion.

In fact, in the digital age, the court of public opinion can destroy someone as quickly and perhaps more throughly than the criminal or civil courts ever could.

Accusers don’t have a “right to be believed” in a free society.

Anyone who denies this, just hasn’t been accused yet.
User avatar
By Jonathan Carone
#540507 There’s a lot of truth in what makarov is saying. However, there’s also a flip side that also true: we have to be a society that is willing to believe victims. If we aren’t willing to believe victims, they feel forced to stay quiet and never bring things to light.

We are currently seeing an over correction of decades of abuse by men who women were scared to confront because they knew they wouldn’t be believe. It’s being taken too far by some and will inevitably cause some false accusations from attention seekers, but it’s also doing a lot of good and exposing some really dark places in our society.

Like most things in life, the right solution is somewhere in the middle.

With that said, when you’re an Evangelical leader, your go to response when allegations like this happen cannot be unbridled support of the man accused while screaming “Fake News!” We have to show compassion and empathy first, not arrogance and dismissive ness.
By Yacht Rock
#540510
makarov97 wrote:
Yacht Rock wrote:
thepostman wrote:It woild be so awesome if people could have a discussion without the terms "snowflake" and "triggered" being thrown in there. I am not a millennial but not all millennials are the same.

Also nobody on this board is claiming this guy is guilty but you also can't completely dismiss it so quickly either.


This. I don't know if he's guilty, but based on the evidence I have (his story/her story) there's just as much chance in my mind of him being guilty versus him being not guilty. I don't know either party so trust doesn't play into this. The story sounds feasible to me (contrary to the protestations of PH) so it may have happened. I don't know if it did but it's certainly looking into. Moore's denial holds just as much water as her accusations for me. I wouldn't dismiss them outright because there is an important vote coming up, etc.

You can say "innocent until proven guilty" and that is how the court system works. That isn't how the court of public opinion works. The good thing (and it is a good thing) is that we as individuals aren't bound by the limitations of the legal system. We can form our own opinions based on the evidence and we don't have to worry about things like reasonable doubt, etc. I.E., if someone is found not guilty on a technicality we don't walk away and say, "oh well, they're innocent."

You can't compare the court system and public opinion. They are vastly different things.


Absolute nonsense. The cop out that you just used is pathetic. It’s one of the. OST dangerous talking points that have come out of this mess. The accuser must bear the burden in every case. The criminal court. The civil court. The “court of public opinion.” If you can destroy someone in any “court” with an accusation, no one is safe and we are all slaves. In a free society, the accused must always, in every case, be given the benefit of the doubt in the absence of evidence.

This is especially important in “he said/she said”cases. This principle has nothing to do with Moore or Takei or anyone else.

The moment we hold a trial and conviction someone on an accusation, in particular an old accusation, freedom dies.

An accuser always has the right to bring forward evidence. That’s what we must convict people on, IN ALL courts, including the court of public opinion.

In fact, in the digital age, the court of public opinion can destroy someone as quickly and perhaps more throughly than the criminal or civil courts ever could.

Accusers don’t have a “right to be believed” in a free society.

Anyone who denies this, just hasn’t been accused yet.


LOL. Someone’s sensitive.
By Yacht Rock
#540511 I’d flip your words around and say it sounds like you’ve never been subject to abuse, right?

My point is that, absent evidence, we have to choose who to believe.

Jon is right and we should always show compassion to alleged victims (which isn’t happening here).

He said/she said cases are always tough, but if I don’t have any personal evidence that speaks to the character of either party, who do I believe?

The world you describe is absolutely terrifying for victims of abuse.
User avatar
By Purple Haize
#540515
Yacht Rock wrote:I’d flip your words around and say it sounds like you’ve never been subject to abuse, right?

My point is that, absent evidence, we have to choose who to believe.

Jon is right and we should always show compassion to alleged victims (which isn’t happening here).

He said/she said cases are always tough, but if I don’t have any personal evidence that speaks to the character of either party, who do I believe?

The world you describe is absolutely terrifying for victims of abuse.


There’s only one person claiming they were molested.
User avatar
By flameshaw
#540528
makarov97 wrote:Pretty laughable and predictable responses by some of the triggered holier than thou millennials in here.

We are in a society right now, where this pathetic "accusers have the right to be believed" mantra has turned the entire nation into the Salem witch trials.

Accusers have the right to fairly present EVIDENCE. They ALWAYS, and WITHOUT QUESTION, must bear the burden of proof. In criminal court. In civil court. In the court of public opinion.

If it isn't that way, we no longer live in a free society, and anyone at any time, can destroy another with an accusation.

If there is actual evidence, so be it. Let the chips fall where they may. If its an accusation, you make the accuser PROVE the charge. Especially if there is a categorical denial on the part of the other.

The triggered snowflakes were devastated by the loss of their lesbian queen, and they are doing everything possible to try to turn society into something where they can gain power.

This latest attempt is one of the most dangerous that I have ever seen.

Duke Lacrosse and UVA come to mind as to why you don't believe accusers and accusations without question.

There were just a couple of hoax/false accusations incidents in Lynchburg not all that long ago.

And just to head off any nonsense, I believe that same standard should apply across the board, even to people whom I politically disagree with. For instance, the accusations against George Takei that just came out. I can't stand Takei. He's a disgusting sodomite. However, he should get all the benefit of the doubt, absent EVIDENCE, especially since he has issued a denial.

It can't be any other way in a free society.


POST OF THE YEAR FOR SURE!!!!!!!!!!!! Besides, I love makarov's, have 7 of them. :)
User avatar
By flameshaw
#540530 Innocent until proven guilty. If he is guilty, punish him and any and everyone else. If someone wants to believe that after 40 years of silence and now this comes out right before an election RIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIGHT, be my guest. There is every reason in the world to believe that it happened and is not just a political move, consumed by the snowflake media. :roll: Kinda like Hairy Reed accusing Mitt Romney of not paying taxes for 10 years just prior to the 2012 election. Besides, it has been proven that Dim-o-craps don't lie. Especially those who worked as deaf signers for Hillary's campaign.
Jr. and the administration are not perfect, personally I would do some things different, but I am not privy to all of the information they have. There has only ever been one perfect man.
Bottom line, there are some haters on here who don't like Jr. and wouldn't like him if he personally paid off their student loans or let everyone come to LU for free and cured cancer in his spare time. We will never know what happened for sure, no one will. However, based on the recent past, there is a very good chance that she is lying. I just read where her mother even questions her side of the story. Plus at least one other woman has come forward saying that she was offered big money to lie on Moore.
Last edited by flameshaw on November 12th, 2017, 4:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
By thepostman
#540531 Aiside from dbackjon nobody here is saying anybody is guilty. It is important for things to play out before throwing your support behind somebody. That is the issue I have with people like Jerry Jr and other evangelical leaders throwing their support behind a guy before knowing all of the facts.

I keep telling myself debating is meaningless and I'm going to stop doing so online. Too many people, including myself, get way to emotion.

My church has been studying 1 Peter and this verse stuck out to me today and my pastor kind of camped out on it. It seems like the perfect verse for me and the American church right now as a whole.

1 Peter 2:15

"For it is God’s will that you silence the ignorance of foolish people by doing good."

I think that will be my prayer for myself right now. I really struggle with that.
User avatar
By flameshaw
#540549
thepostman wrote:Aiside from dbackjon nobody here is saying anybody is guilty. It is important for things to play out before throwing your support behind somebody. That is the issue I have with people like Jerry Jr and other evangelical leaders throwing their support behind a guy before knowing all of the facts.

I keep telling myself debating is meaningless and I'm going to stop doing so online. Too many people, including myself, get way to emotion.

My church has been studying 1 Peter and this verse stuck out to me today and my pastor kind of camped out on it. It seems like the perfect verse for me and the American church right now as a whole.

1 Peter 2:15

"For it is God’s will that you silence the ignorance of foolish people by doing good."

I think that will be my prayer for myself right now. I really struggle with that.


Don't totally disagree with the the highlighted part of your post. However, when the other side makes accusations with zero facts to back it up, I don't see anything wrong with defending the guy based on what we do know and what his reputation/conduct has been more recently. ie. if this had been a pattern, or previous accusations made.
Not a defense of the judge, or anyone else. But sexual assault had a much different definition 40 years ago than it does now. IF, what the girl said actually did happen, it wouldn't have been considered a sexual assault back then. (A guy tried to make a move on a girl, didn't succeed and left her alone). The big thing to me would be why was he with a girl 14 years old, IF he was and why didn't one of her parents know and IF they did, why did they allow it? If every guy who tried to make a move on a girl, without removing her bra and/or panties was guilty of sexual assault, my guess is, we would have an all female Congress.
AGAIN, not trying to defend anyone. I have two girls and I am very sensitive to their safety and well-being.
User avatar
By Purple Haize
#540551 I don’t think 14 is the Age of Consent in Alabama
And even your definition would exclude a couple of female Congresspersons :shock:
User avatar
By flameshaw
#540576
Purple Haize wrote:I don’t think 14 is the Age of Consent in Alabama
And even your definition would exclude a couple of female Congresspersons :shock:


Good point regarding Congress.

Age 14 is the median age for getting married in Alabama and WV..................... isn't it?
Being that no sex act is being alleged, not sure age of consent is in play here. Not interested in getting into a peeing contest over this in any event. It is a she said/he said and none of us will ever know the truth of the matter.
User avatar
By Purple Haize
#540580
flameshaw wrote:
Purple Haize wrote:I don’t think 14 is the Age of Consent in Alabama
And even your definition would exclude a couple of female Congresspersons :shock:


Good point regarding Congress.

Age 14 is the median age for getting married in Alabama and WV..................... isn't it?
Being that no sex act is being alleged, not sure age of consent is in play here. Not interested in getting into a peeing contest over this in any event. It is a she said/he said and none of us will ever know the truth of the matter.


The age of the One girl is extremely important to the allegations. The other women involved were over the Age of Consent, the 14 year old was not. TThe 3 other women claimed everything was consensual. The one who was 14 at the time, claims it was NOT consensual and legal she could not give her consent anyways
IF you believe her story, what Moore did, taking her shirt off and touching her over her bra and panties, is sexual assault/abuse among a host of other things. Touching someone else’s genitalia actual IS considered a Sexual Act. You are right, we may never know. But there could be enough evidence to give us a good idea what happened. I’ve made my opinion clear, but when discussing the point, it’s good to have clarity in what you are discussing.
By ballcoach15
#540583 I do not believe any of the allegations, because of the 40 year time span. This is just false allegation fabricated by Liberals to try to influence an election. I hope Moore wins.
Liberals are out to destroy America. Often times, I wonder what do they really want, other than kill babies, love homosexuals, and bring in as many Muslins as they can, to vote for them.
User avatar
By Class of 20Something
#540588
ballcoach15 wrote:and bring in as many Muslins as they can, to vote for them.


My daughter loved hers though. Wrapped her up like a little baby burrito!
User avatar
By Purple Haize
#540603
adam42381 wrote:Mitch McConnell says he believes the women and Moore should step aside.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... story.html


This surprises you ? He doesn’t believe the women. He sees Moore and what he represents as a threat to his power.
User avatar
By Class of 20Something
#540609
ballcoach15 wrote:McConnell should step aside.


Well, yeah.
User avatar
By RubberMallet
#540653 these newest things with yearbooks and a city basically banning him from the mall is weird. For me the evidence is compelling enough to find this guy a skeezbag who shouldn't be in charge of stuff.

i'm for people saying they dont' believe it though. thats fair to an extent. but most of these people have probably condemned many of the celebrities that have been accused of such acts without much evidence required. So at least have the same standards evidence wise across the board

the people justifying the actions if true because of things that happened in the Bible, well. you are an idiot.
User avatar
By Jonathan Carone
#540665 What about all the other reports? The mall banning him? Other people saying it was a known thing? Are those all not credible as well?

This may have been brought to light because of dirty politics but it's overwhelmingly obvious that Moore liked young girls.
User avatar
By Purple Haize
#540667
Jonathan Carone wrote:What about all the other reports? The mall banning him? Other people saying it was a known thing? Are those all not credible as well?

This may have been brought to light because of dirty politics but it's overwhelmingly obvious that Moore liked young girls.


2 things. There is a difference between liking young girls and liking underage girls. People saying ‘it was a known’ thing is irrelevant. Ask what specifically was known and you will get different answers.
If he truly was a sexual predator who liked underage girls there would be more contemporaneous stories of his predations. It’s a known, fact that sexual predators of underage girls continue to do so. He wouldn’t have just stopped in his mid 30’s